Typical right-wing NRA puppet talking point:

Hopkins' researchers. LMAO. You think Teddy Nugent, and similar gun lovers/promoters, helped him reach his conclusions?

Proud to say. However, you appear to be friendly with the the gun fondlers.

so they tell us.

your resurrection? You do seem to have learned how to dance around the SOP of this Group in this incarnation however, so enjoy your stay Bubba.

Edit: In regards to your snarky picture post above, those guys are paid to "strap on a gun," and are not wannabe vigilantes.

secret to many of us Bubba...

So what is it? How does that phrase go? Put up or....something or other.

I am forced to defer to your experience in interactions with such people.

with NRA board members like Teddy Nugent.

Have you?

about your weapons of choice for various highly unlikely encounters with scary people, appreciation for stand your ground laws, and the like.

I try to get along with everyone.

I don't always succeed, but I do try.

Last edited Sun Mar 30, 2014, 08:31 PM - Edit history (1)

How do any of your posts to this Group contribute to "discussing how to enact progressive gun control reform?" That is a quote from the SOP for this Group, and nothing that I've seen from your postings in this Group so far are anything but derisive of gun control, and attempts at disruption.

If you have nothing to post about how to enact progressive gun control reform, I suggest that you contain your snarky posts to the RKBA Group where you may post anti-gun control screeds to your heart's content.

If you simply ignore my questions and keep throwing out your own, that's not a conversation, is it?

Here they are again:

You seem to think I have a secret identity...so tell me: Who am I?

Also: Given that you have justified people being armed when they are paid to "strap on a gun" (your words, not mine), do you in fact defend the arming of Blackwater mercenaries? If not, how is that consistent with your previous statement?

Now, if you can find it in yourself to answer these questions in a polite, restrained manner, we can continue to converse. If, on the other hand, you simply want to make snarky insults ("Bubba"? Really?), then I'm afraid you're in contravention of the SOP of this group, and should contain your posts to other forums, and not continue to disrupt this one.

able to say goodbye properly. Goodbye...

I am aware that such folks exist, but I do not know for sure if I have ever met one, apart from Civil War reenactors.

but your anti-gun control bias is showing Bubba.

legal "experts" over there who lecture on the meaning of court rulings on all gun matters -- especially how rulings unfavorable to the NRA are not really what they appear, and are actually a boost for the right-wing gun lobby.

they are attempting to skew the discussion with cherry-picked half-truths. They are referring to a decline in the overall homicide rate, whereas the referenced report specifically refers to an increase in "gun homicides."

While overall violent crime is decreasing nationwide (a debunked NRA talking point: "more guns = less crime&quot , gun violence rates (including gun homicides and suicides) remain steady, and are slightly increasing in areas where sane gun laws have been relaxed by the corrupt influence of right-wing gun lobby.

Gun deaths are on track to exceed automobile deaths by next year, but the NRA/ALEC/Koch Brothers right-wing gun lobby ignores that fact, and lobbies against any scientific research into the gun violence epidemic in this country.

their gun love and credentials compared to Johns Hopkins researchers. Next, they'll be telling us JH's researchers don't know gun nomenclature, as if that makes any difference.

who have defended and supported Zimmerman since before the sham trial. Their motto: "If you're a gunner, you're good to go."

...nomenclature is actually pretty important.

As far as defining "assault weapon," just restrict all semi-autos to one per gun fancier. I mean dang, the gun fanciers and manufacturers are the one who try to live with the spirit of the law. They gotta have a bunch of menacing weapons to fondle. Don't you find that a bit sick?

BTW, I see from your posts below that you have a refreshing attitude toward gunz not often exhibited by most in the gun culture who espouse Molon Labe, or some such BS.

I mean dang, these guys clearly aren't well meaning gun owners --

I guess the study demonstrates causation.

I really enjoy shooting. I shoot paper targets at controlled ranges and it is a lot of fun. I hope I never have to give it up, but if there are some guns or accessories I can no longer own because of the public danger private ownership creates, well then that's how it has to be. No one should have to go to school worrying if some asshole is going to show up and murder a bunch of folks. So I support gun control hoping to end the violence. Hopefully, if banning the most destructive weapons eliminates the violence, then there will be no need to go after sporting guns. If I can only load ten rounds at a time, well it's not like paper targets put up much of a fight.

Thank you for your civility, and for your understanding of the need for sensible gun control legislation in the interest of public safety. None of the Groups listed in the pinned post at the top of this thread are advocating "confiscation" of legal weapons. There are mixed messages and feelings about so-called 'assault weapons," and the arguments on both sides have merit.

The right-wing gun lobby fronted by the NRA has only one goal: to sell more guns. To do that their marketing model is the elimination of any and all sane gun laws nationwide.

If gun makers can sell to Mexican drug lords at gun shows, they will do it and in fact they are doing it.

Protect myself from a gun. The circular logic of that argument shows the depth of cognitive dissonance employed on this subject.

From an earlier article from Raw Story:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/17/study-missouri-murders-spike-after-state-repeals-gun-background-check-law/